TED Conversations

Kevin Hernandez

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

How, if any at all! can we minimize the conflicts of religion and atheism.

Finding reasonable ways to bridge religion and atheism. As an atheist I firmly believe there is no God or Gods that exist and there are many others that have this conviction. We all know the antagonism that our group receives and such. And we know the antagonism that the religious receive from those that call themselves militant atheists'. Religion is widely dispersed throughout the world, the cultures and customs associated with it are vast and the ethics that radiate from it is breathtaking. These are elements I think that we can't and should never ignore. Which leads me to say that we should seek a middle course between these two systems. But how?


Closing Statement from Kevin Hernandez

This conversation has inspired heated debate among a number of you and only seeks to solidify how robust the antagonism is between these two groups. Some incredible points were brought up, but It looks like we still have a long way to go before harmonizing these far-flung groups.
Thank you for your participation, it was most welcome.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Sep 13 2011: A good place to start would be to properly understand what each side is. I'm tired of hearing people calling evolution an atheist doctrine. Atheism is not a subset, superset or equal to science. If your religion is incompatible with scientific theories, those theories don't become atheism. On the other hand, if your personal belief is incompatible with scientific theories, it's just wrong. The existence of God may be debatable, but scientific theories aren't. Evidence speaks for science not belief.

    Conversely, I am tired of people saying that Muslims are all a certain way because the Koran tells them to. Just like many Christians, many Muslims don't chose a literal interpretation of their sacred text. People tend to forget that the Bible asks Christians and Jews to do and believe some crazy stuff too and most just don't do it because by so many other standards, it's wrong. So I don't want to have to hear "oh they are like that, it's in the Koran".

    To that I add the more secular a religious person is, the better. Secularism is necessary for all beliefs to flourish without preferential treatment.
    • Sep 13 2011: "The existence of God may be debatable, but scientific theories aren't." - Oh yes they are ! Modern Science - so called - a long time ago moved away from evidence and proof and attempts of this sort of thing and moved in the world of Hypotheses – Today it’s all about Karl Popper’s “Conjectures and Refutations”. Scientists create Paradigms – much like medieval theologians - as to the nature of the Universe – i.e. they make it up, then they agree to agree – This is called the “Scientific Consensus” and then proceed to persecute anyone how disagrees with this – the reality is a lot more medieval than you seem to think – Hence the Sneering is very much part of it – if they could actually prove a critic was wrong by simply proving it quietly they would, as they can’t they sneer and ridicule. When you are trying to find a secret passage in an old house in a movie you tap the walls till you hear the sound change then you know there is a false wall – when you here a sneer from a “scientist” it means you’ve found a dodgy paradigm.
      • thumb
        Sep 13 2011: Placing scientific jargon and buzzwords amidst the ramblings will not convince anyone but yourself here on TED. If your sole goal is to reassure yourself you are right, may I suggest finding a location with a nice echo. I don't think scientists can do much more than ridicule intelligent design advocates when they seem impervious to argument (to be honest, only a few really bother at all).
        • Sep 13 2011: No, in response to "when you hear a sneer from a “scientist” it means you’ve found a dodgy paradigm." I have not hacked Matts account to do his state of the art sneer reply - he did it all himself - not a fact in site, not a refutation of Popper’s modern scientific method even attempted. I do agree with Matt though: scientists can't do much more than Ridicule Intelligent Design this sort of thing is part of the great unknown – pretending it to be known is just plain dishonest.
        • Sep 13 2011: My main point is about the unknown of these things : so Athiesm is only a belief and a religion
      • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Sep 13 2011: Krisztian you're right, I got confused there. You're totally right. Good thing someone clever like you is watching!
      • Sep 16 2011: I believe I see the point that Bianca is getting to. Amid all this information-technologies that are at our grasp whether it be Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, BBC, etc etc etc.., it makes it harder and harder to assort all these different sets of information about pretty much anything. What do we believe and what don't we believe? Global warming and evolution are concepts that are backed up by scientific evidence. I believe it because I see/read the facts and evidence. There are a good amount of people who say they don't believe it, but haven't even bothered to research it or ask people with better knowledge concerning the matter. That's why we have experts of various subjects who clearly are better educated than the common man about these subjects. Which brings me back to Bianca's point: there is definitely a lot of "science" that could be debunked, but for that it has a name: pseudo science. There are countless examples of it in the media. My creative writing teacher is making us watch a documentary titled "Kymatica" which is based on "actual" research and yet is full of inconsistencies and redundancies. Pretty interesting though I guess. But the fact of the matter is that if you are willing to question the so called experts then one must actually do the research himself/herself about a given matter before questioning whatever your questioning. Bianca I would love to hear some "scientific theories" that are false and yet don't fall under the realm of pseudoscience. =)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.